Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

EDIT AT 20.10 pm: I submitted a further post asking the creationist whether they had any biblical grounds for deciding that Christians who consider that we can learn facts from a (non-infallible) 'book' of nature are just 'pretend Christians'. However, the comment has disappeared off my screen so I can only conclude that either Paul Braterman has failed it for some reason or else there has been a technical problem.

FURTHER EDIT AT 20.20 pm: I have just found an email from Paul explaining why he did not publish my second comment of today. His message includes the sentence (about 'theologyarchaeology') "The man has already sufficiently incriminated himself ...". (I will acknowledge Paul's message.)

'Tee' wrote (in December 2014) under that Paul Braterman blog post:"Uhm…God did not write a book of nature and anything that supposed book claims has been read into it by secularists and pretend Christians. And the only people who have written a book of nature are humans who do not believe God.God already said how he created all things in the Bible–he spoke and it was. Literalists do not have their hermeneutics wrong, it is the pretend Christians who have dismissed God’s word and statement about origins and written their own ideas and say God did it."

When accused by myself of being anti-science (I omitted the word 'rabidly' that I have justifiably used more recently after seeing Tee repeatedly deny basic facts and realities such as natural selection) Tee then sought to falsely redefine 'science' and 'nature' to suit his fundamentalist religious agenda. Viz: "creationists are not anti-science biut [sic] anti the lies produced by secular scientists and pseudo-christians.sure we can learn from nature but evolution and natural selection are not found in nature but read into it by those who reject the truth of the Bible".

I think the reality denying bigot is attempting to argue that because natural selection is not in the Bible therefore it does not exist. This idiocy just highlights how some realities exist that are not mentioned in the Bible and which if you only read the Bible and never looked at reality you would never suspect to be real (natural selection, speciation, evolution within and beyond so-called 'kinds').

There is NO book of nature. the idea that evidence was placed in nature to undermine the credibility of God's word is created by unbelieving men and women. There is absolutely NO evolutionary evidence in nature. Such a idea is read into what is discovered by unbelieving people.

Roberts used any information he found even though none o fit pertained to me but belonged to other people.